Bollinger is indeed a smart man. The professional schools are thriving under his leadership. The theme of innovation and putting the university resources to solve the most pressing social problems is infused throughout every department. It is a veritable Renaissance of Columbia.

This will not be the last major gift they receive and big donors of Harvard should think about the decline and rise of institutions as they ponder where to direct their philanthropy.
 

Richard,

The relevant comparison may be not among LB and LS, but among the 24 trustees of Columbia and the seven members of the Harvard Corporation.

It is apparent that Columbia's trustees have been wiser than Harvard's corporation on a number of fronts. Or is it their number?
 

The scuttlebut in development is that LB is already courting major Harvard donors.

Development staff at Columbia are working with a very important NYC based donor who had already planned a major gift to Harvard but is having second thoughts reportely because he is unhappy with the way in which an initiative that he funded is going. LB is personally involved in conversations with this donor and if he gets him to change his mind it will be a coup with devastating consequences for Harvard.
 

No 'coup' of this sort can be devastating to Harvard. With the largest university endowment in the world Harvard's challenge is not how to raise more money, but how to use the money it has wisely.
 

Exactly 12:07, which is why donors should consider spending their money in places where it will make a greater difference. Nothing like throwing good money after bad!
 

It would certainly help american higher education to spread the wealth a little, and Harvard has not exactly shown much wisdom during the last few years using the many privileges that her deep endowment affords.

It might actually be smart of Harvard to slow down the development machine a little and focus more on the core values and mission of the university.
 

I wouldn't hold your breath on that.
 

Gotta figure out what the core values and mission are first, though.
 

If they don't know what their core mission and values are at Harvard they surely should not be raising money until they can figure those out.

Other universities know well what their mission is, perhaps those who are unclear as to their goals and values should get out of the way.
 

The disastrous effect that Summers has had on the campaign and fundraising is the main reason the Corporation got rid of him. The FAS faculty problem explains the timing, but not the root cause of the firing. (Along with the way that Summers dealt with Jack Meyer.) Follow the money.
The damage is considerable, and will take years to overcome. (It has been obscured by the misleading reports that some donors were withholding gifts because of his departure.)
 

Bollinger has encouraged his Deans to raid Harvard selectively, particularly for faculty in the areas were donors are discontent with Harvard's performance.

Look out for more departures of faculty from Harvard to Columbia...and then follow the money
 

The University is well aware of the problems discussed in this thread. The UPO was working late last night on a story in direct response to some of the problems. Here it is:

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=518194
 

During the search for a Harvard president that culminated -- a totally inappropriate word in this context! --- in the choice of Larry Summers, the faculty were asked for general criteria. This faculty member wrote that the president should consider Harvard to really be a non-profit institution. The inability to separate academic goals from fundraising was one of Summers' major failings. Most disturbingly, there was no effort to step back and ask what Harvard could do in the sciences --- utilzing its enormous EXISTING resources --- that no other institution could do. Indeed, efforts to raise this question were actively squelched by Summers and Hyman. Instead, as a thoughtful senior FAS Dean put it, the focus was on "theme-park science" in an unneeded --- except for publicty and legacy --- new science campus in Allston.

When Maxine Singer and the Carnegie Institute that she led was considering what promising areas of science to put their resources into, she gave as a prime counter-example the new Centers that had recently (about eight years ago) been announced by Jeremy Knowles. The tendency to focus Harvard efforts in areas of science that were well recognized, well funded, and well covered by other universities got far worse under Summers.
Beyond its long term negative effect on Harvard, this lack of vision represents a missed opportunity for science more broadly.